Mid-July 2013 Blog Update of THE GREAT DEPRESSION of DEBT

My new novel “The Child Remover” is now available on Amazon as both a paperback and in a Kindle version.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

US OIL INDEPENDENCE, IGNORING FURTHER INCREASES IN SHALE OIL

Let’s look at future US oil independence if no further gains are made in shale oil, but US oil production remains at the current level. 2013 YTD, the US produced about 7 million barrels of crude oil per day and imported about 7.4 million barrels per day.

Per http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/fuel_economy_report.pdf, the required 2025 CAFÉ standards in cars and light trucks of 54.5 mpg will lower the use of oil in the US by 4 million barrels per day by 2035. Note that this goal is very achievable given that the plug-in Prius and Volt already get 95 and 98 mpg respectively (based on the CAFÉ tests). Even the regular Prius gets 50 mpg. In addition, per the Annual Energy Outlook 2013, the projected conversion of heavy trucks to natural gas will save 0.7 million barrels of oil per day (this is a conservative number, since trucks consume 3 million barrels of oil per day).

In addition to the above, per the Federal Highway Association, people over 65 drive about half as far as the average miles driven by other age groups. In 2009, there were 33 million licensed drivers over 65. That number doubles by 2030. The effect of this change in demographics, which is not included in other studies, will reduce the total miles driven by about 8.5% and reduce oil usage by an additional 0.4 million barrels per day.

The total oil use reduction of all the above changes is 5.1 million barrels per day by 2035. Given that the current oil import rate is 7.4 million gallons per day, these changes alone will reduce total oil imports by almost 70% and completely eliminate the need for oil imports from any country other than Canada.

So, even without additional shale oil, the US is making great headway towards energy independence. And note that I did not include the effects of a growing use of renewables like solar and wind, because their initial effect will be to shut down high polluting and expensive coal powered electric plants, not to save oil or gas. But eventually, the increased use of renewable energy along with the conversion to electric cars will further reduce oil usage. And if the incentives for converting trucks to natural gas were improved, the US could get complete energy independence even without shale oil.

US OIL INDEPENDENCE, INCLUDING PROJECTED INCREASES IN SHALE OIL

The projections for shale oil production are going up almost monthly as drillers are learning new and improved techniques for gettting more oil out of the shale formations. These new techniques include re-fracking, horizontal drilling in multiple directions from the same drilling site, moving the whole drill rig without disassembling it, etc. These improvements have cut costs and cancelled out some of the earlier concerns about decline rates of the fracked sites. U.S. shale oil production, which was 230,000 barrels a day in 2007, is forecast to top 2.3 million barrels this year, a 1,000 percent increase according to the Department of Energy. A team of analysts and economists at Citigroup says U.S. oil production might climb more than a third by 2015, driven by “tight oil” from shale and tar sands. And versus my estimate above that without shale oil North America will achieve energy independence by 2035, Citi says that the U.S., or at least North America, can achieve energy independence by 2020 when additional shale oil is included.

A very recent study, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook, 2013 and Short-Term Energy Outlook, May 2013, gives similar projections. It shows domestic oil production growing to 9.5 millions of barrels a day by 2020. That is 2.5 millions of barrels a day more than current, and when the above oil usage reductions are included, it eliminates the need to import oil completely and makes the US totally oil independent.

US NATURAL GAS INDEPENDENCE

The story on natural gas from shale is even more positive than oil. Per the Annual Energy Outlook 2013, U.S. dry natural gas production continues increasing, outpacing domestic consumption by 2020 and spurring net exports of natural gas. Higher volumes of shale gas production are central to the transition to net exports. U.S. exports of LNG from domestic sources are expected to rise to approximately 1.6 trillion cubic feet in 2027. Not only does the additional supply of natural gas enable the US to become an energy exporter, it also enables US industrial production to grow rapidly due to an extended period of relatively low natural gas prices, which lower the costs of both raw materials and energy.

WHAT WILL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE BUY THE US?

A team of analysts and economists at Citigroup says that more energy independence could mean 3.6 million new jobs, enough to cut unemployment by two percentage points. Per http://dickatlee.com/issues/econ/unemp_deficit.html, each 1% of excess unemployment adds nearly $60 billion to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts the annual deficit will be $670 billion when the budget year ends on Sept. 30. So, compared to this year’s budget deficit, if we had the projected energy savings now, we would have a current budget deficit reduced by $120 billion, making the deficit $550 billion. That would still be a large deficit. But as Paul Krugman noted on March 10, the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path; all we need is a deficit small enough that debt grows more slowly than the economy.…a current sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion. So we would be getting awfully close to a sustainable budget deficit this year if somehow we were already getting the benefits of energy independence. And given that the CBO is projecting that the deficit will fall to $378 billion by 2015, we are getting close to not only having a sustainable deficit, but actually paying down our national debt versus the size of our economy.

Note that the above numbers do not include the other likely benefits we would get from energy independence. For example, Milton R. Copulos, President of the National Defense Council Foundation, estimates that the fixed costs of defending Persian Gulf oil amounts to $138 billion annually. I have no way of verifying these numbers, but we all know that the costs are huge and are likely go down as we no longer need Mid-East oil.

IS FRACKING HURTING THE ENVIRONMENT?

Yes! But how badly is an open question. Fracking is exempt from key federal environmental regulations. The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (passed during the Bush/Cheney era) contained a provision that has come to be known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” an exemption for gas drilling and extraction from requirements in the underground injection control program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This has limited the amount of governmental scrutiny and oversight that fracking would have normally received.

One of the environmental issues is wells leaking methane. This is largely controllable with proper sheathing of the cement casing that surrounds a newly drilled well. A second concern is the potential for the fracking fluid to contaminate water. The third concern is all the wastewater that flows back up the well that has to be properly disposed of.

There is little doubt that industry can reduce all of these environmental concerns somewhat (for example, a new study by scientists at Duke University and the U.S. Geological Survey found no evidence of groundwater contamination from shale gas production in Arkansas), but it seems obvious that some degree of all three problems will continue as long as fracking is used. These concerns have to be balanced against the proven environmental harm of coal (power plants that burn natural gas emit about half the amount of the greenhouse gases as coal-fired power) and the burning of excess oil that natural gas can replace. Since natural gas gives us a viable backup for solar and wind, which are undeniably cleaner sources of energy, it seems like fracking and the resultant increased availability of oil and natural gas will help us get to a higher level of solar/wind usage and an overall improved environment. In the meantime, we should all be pressuring Congress to get more oversight/controls on fracking.

SUMMARY

It seems that the US is likely to reach complete energy independence sometime between 2020 and 2035. Although that won’t solve all our budget deficit issues, it will help dramatically. Longer range issues like Medicare costs will have to be addressed separately. But we have so many examples of countries around the world that control healthcare costs without sacrificing quality of healthcare services that once US health costs get so high that we have no choice but to address them, we will reign in the costs. Democracy doesn’t work well until it absolutely has to!

The other thing worth noting is that most of the steps to getting to energy independence have nothing to do with fracking. Projected energy independence is mostly due to changes in our CAFÉ MPG for vehicles. Will this really happen? Well, the technologies are already there, and car companies have bought into this because they have learned that increased MPG sells cars. But there is still some risk that some future government will cancel the MPG requirements due to lobbying pressure by oil companies or unforeseen problems as new technologies are implemented across the board.

Although a lot of the above numbers are estimates, even if they are off substantially it seems that the US is at the start of a potentially huge growth spurt fueled (pun intended) by energy independence. At the end of next year, several pipelines are scheduled to be completed that will ease the transportation of the new energy freed up by fracking, and at that point our economy should start to realize some of the potential benefits in a big way. This, coupled with our already improving economy, may prove to be the catalyst for the start of an exciting new economic period for the US.

MONITORING MY THREE STOCK PICKS

I assumed that someone bought an equal dollar amount of stock of each of these companies at their closing prices on June 14, 2013. I compare their average performance to the S&P 500 (SPY). The three companies and SPY closing share prices are as follows:

CLR 6/14/2013 $86.31 7/12/2013 $92.78

OAS 6/14/2013 $41.37 7/12/2013 $41.90

WLL 6/14/2013 $48.07 7/12/2013 $48.51

Average Gain = 3.23%

SPY 6/14/2013 $162.32 7/12/2013 $167.51 Gain = 3.20%

Note: I own a small amount of one of these three stocks. As always, people should use their own judgment/data to affect their own investment strategies; and they should not blindly use the above information. Intelligent people can, and do, disagree.

You supply no data or logic to back up your argument, nor do you show where my logic or data are wrong. If you want to have an intelligent discussion it takes more than just guttural mutterings on your part.

As long as the Obama admin continues to impose sanctions on drilling in the US and shutting down coal mines, etc. The US will continue to be at the mercy of foreign oil. Libs tend to think that we can stop using fossil fuels right now, but it is all a pipe dream. A vehicle that can run without the aid of fossil fuels is something that may happen sometime in the distant future. Wind turbines are a bit of a joke since they cost an average of 1 – 3 million each to install and it will take an average of twenty years before they start making any money. By the time the twenty years is up, then the majority of them will be worn out.

Doug Toner Says: “A vehicle that can run without the aid of fossil fuels is something that may happen sometime in the distant future.” Nothing in my update says that we require a “vehicle that can run without the aid of fossil fuels.” In fact I specifically note that both the plug-in Prius and Chevy Volt exceed the required MPG, and both utilize fossil fuels along with being able to be plugged in. In fact, even the regular Prius almost makes it, and the press releases on the coming model indicate that the Prius will exceed the requirements.

You also say, “Wind turbines are a bit of a joke since they cost an average of 1 – 3 million each to install and it will take an average of twenty years before they start making any money.” Again, nothing in my update says that wind turbines are required for energy independence – they will just be a bonus.

So, my logic and data still stands! You may be wise to actually read my update before your next reply.

Sovereigns can print money to pay for labor/service-related 70 year a-life-time-of-work promised obligations…( the Sovereigns should, they must, and they will) Lesser entities … the Municipalities, US States, PiGGS, Nongermanic tribes third world country’s not denominated in hegemonic nuclear backed US dollars… cannot … actuarially impossible … and that is the rub….

Ultimately, the Great Depression of (less than sovereign) Debt so qualitatively well … desribes the determinstiic mechanistic 12 Sigma Asset Debt Macroeconomic System… at this very quantitative transitional point……

Your argument is logical but how many jobs will be created is debatable. What makes you so positive that this trend will trump the negatives of low consumer demand and business investment, high debt, massive excess liquidity and an impending tsunami of government transfers to an aging population that votes in high percentages and has an overwhelming need for the benefits we have promised them.

I once read a book called “The Second Great Depression” that saw things differently. You wrote that book. Did you ever think you were right but your timing was off because you could not imagine all the ways the Fed could react over the short term to delay disaster. That does not mean its not coming.

Will energy independence be enough to turn the whole thing around and what makes you so confident?

Way Up North says, “Your argument is logical but how many jobs will be created is debatable…I once read a book called “The Second Great Depression” that saw things differently. You wrote that book. Did you ever think you were right but your timing was off because you could not imagine all the ways the Fed could react over the short term to delay disaster…Will energy independence be enough to turn the whole thing around and what makes you so confident?”

Believe me; I am very aware that I wrote a book predicting a depression. That prediction proved to be wrong and I am keeping my blog active so people can periodically remind me of that. I think that is the definition of a masochist!

As with most things in the economy, the best anyone can do is work with the data and history that are available at the time. I did well in predicting the housing and market crash. What I did NOT foresee is the historical unprecedented rescue of banks and industry that was done by the Fed and the government. And, in fairness to Bernanke, by every measure they have so far been surprisingly successful. Although it is likely that inflation will rise from its current very low levels, there are no signs of rampant inflation on the horizon. Part of the reason is the weakness of the Euro which makes the US dollar look pretty good. Another reason is the ability of US industry to get unprecedented efficiencies out of the remaining workforce. But in any case, given the current data and recent history, the US economy does NOT look like it is heading into a depression. A short term recession maybe; but not a depression!

I believe that energy independence is a game changer. Look at how much of our past governmental actions (and resultant deficit) have been driven by energy concerns in the Middle East, and just imagine what our economy would have been without those actions. And what is especially important is that the main driver for energy independence is reduced energy use by our transportation systems; not the resultant oil/gas from fracking. Increased MPG by vehicles is very much doable, and the targets are not even pushing technology. For example, if you add the benefits of a light-weight carbon body to the already impressive improvements on the Prius and Chevy Volt, you get remarkably efficient automobiles. In the past, efforts by the likes of President Carter to get us to be energy efficient involved Americans giving up some creature comforts. The current implementation of new technologies requires none of that. In fact, the Chevy Volt has one of the highest satisfaction ratings of any car ever produced in production volumes. The other freebie we get by reducing the fossil fuels used in vehicles is a lower contribution to global warming.

The estimates on resultant job creation may be too high or too low. But I do know that the unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.1%, the lowest in the nation. And that low rate is due to shale oil/gas drilling. And those jobs are well paying jobs. Those jobs in ND will multiply to other states as pipelines, refineries, and other related industries are affected. And the affected people will buy cars, build homes, and otherwise invigorate the economy with dollars that would otherwise flow to the Middle East.

The data I supplied in this recent update was the best I could find. In investing, it seems that the best anyone can do is to attempt to predict the future the best as possible. No one can do this without risk. But going back to my book on the depression, those who followed my advice on buying TIP did quite well. And, if they kept up with my blog’s suggestions, they sold TIP at just about its high. And this was despite that my depression prediction proved to be wrong!

I did not mean to stimulate either the sadist in me or the masochist in you. When you wrote the book I never thought you responsible for anything but the best analysis you could make at the time. I believe you are doing the same now as you point to energy independence as a game changer. I hope you are right. I hunch you are being optimistic.

How can you believe we are only at risk for a short term recession? If that were the truth, why would the Federal Reserve have lowered interest rates to below inflation, kept them there so long, inferred they will keep them there for a great while longer, and gone on a debt purchase program that is unprecedented? Is it all only to keep us out of a short term recession? Does that seem logical to you? Why do you think the Federal Reserve has done all this?

Way Up North says, “How can you believe we are only at risk for a short term recession? If that were the truth, why would the Federal Reserve have lowered interest rates to below inflation, kept them there so long, inferred they will keep them there for a great while longer, and gone on a debt purchase program that is unprecedented? Is it all only to keep us out of a short term recession? Does that seem logical to you? Why do you think the Federal Reserve has done all this?”

When the Fed started all their actions such as debt purchase and their efforts to lower interest rates below inflation, they were truly afraid of a depression. But that was years ago and times have changed. What they are doing now is the very difficult challenge of removing the punch bowl, or at least lowering its alcohol content, without causing a market crash. If in this process of baby steps the Fed senses that the economy is backsliding, they will just put back some of the stimulus they will slowly be removing. Thus the risk is of a recession if they move too quickly but not of a depression because they will just take a step backwards if required. I suspect that it will take several years of this back-and-forth before the Fed truly can remove all stimuli. They will have to do the removals in conjunction with real improvements in the economy, which I believe that energy independence will supply.

The 2013 deficit is now expected to be much lower than anyone would have projected several years ago. Same with the unemployment rate! Yes, many people have dropped out of the workforce, but industry has showed that they can do quite well without them because of increased efficiencies. These people will slowly be brought back into the workforce as demand dictates. But it is pretty hard to look at the economic numbers and not sense some small but real improvements in the US economy.

Maybe you are right that I am just being overly optimistic. But those of you who read my book know that blind optimism is not my nature. I go where numbers take me. Sure, I could be wrong. But if someone waits until there are no risks and everyone accepts that an economic prediction is valid, then it is too late to use that information as a means to make money on investing. I just put out the data and my rationale, and everyone can make their own investment decisions.

Incidentally, in the interest of transparency, I now own stock in all three companies I am tracking in my blog updates.

Tom says that I owe him an apology for my reply to one of his comments. So, here it is. I apologize. I have removed the reply that offended you and all related comments/discussions between you and I related to that comment from the blog site.

In addition, you will be happy to hear that I have decided to discontinue this blog site. I no longer find it rewarding or worth the tremendous amount of work I put into each monthly update. I will make the formal announcement on my next update, which will be the middle of August. I have no wish to offend you or anyone else that disagrees with my data and/or reasoning.

Warren has been one of the only blogs I look forward to reading every single month because he presents DATA and LOGICAL ANALYSIS and MAKES ME THINK outside the box… and because he is a GENTLEMAN.

I’m not a gentleman, though, (at least not today), and have no problem saying the following: Tom, you stupid idiot.

I don’t know what the hell you wrote here to upset him enough to decide to quit this, but you, sir, should be the one apologizing.

His latest ideas about energy independence fly in the face of everything that I’ve read elsewhere…and yet… and yet… he’s convinced me! I am an Physics and Environmental Science professor, and know a lot of this data very well. What I hadn’t taken into consideration were the coming changes in automobile efficiency. Or the change in demographics of drivers.

This article totally changed my thinking on the situation… and it did so by presenting data.

One thing Warren didn’t mention, however, was the possibility of solar becoming a game changer in the next 15 years. The following article by Ramez Naam makes a fairly convincing case that solar will be as cheap as coal by around 2018.

Warren, before you end this blog, please consider all the good you’ve done, and those of us who always look forward to reading your thoughts. Don’t let the haters affect your decision making. There will always be critics, and some of them will be unkind. They aren’t the important ones.

I hope you reconsider.

Perhaps you can start a private, invitation-only blog? Or discussion forum?

Greg Says: “One thing Warren didn’t mention, however, was the possibility of solar becoming a game changer in the next 15 years.”

The articles you reference emphasize how the cost of solar collectors is dropping dramatically. In my earlier blog, I mentioned that the abundance of natural gas would allow the growth of both solar and wind energy. The issue of solar is not just the cost of the collectors themselves. The issue is what do you do when the sun isn’t shining and how you get the solar energy to parts of the country that are not blessed with a large percentage of sunshine. Batteries have just not lived up to their expected progress for energy storage, in cost, energy density, charge/discharge rate, or life. Nor are there even batteries in labs that hit requirements. So it will be many years before batteries can fill the needs for energy storage. In the meantime, new and efficient natural gas power plants can fill this role. We don’t end up with as clean of energy source as we would with battery storage, but the total solar/natural gas power package would certainly by cleaner than current coal, oil, or gas power plants.

The other issue is the required infrastructure to move energy from the solar sources to where the energy is needed. This cost must be included when you compare solar or wind costs to other power sources that are often built relatively near to where the energy is needed. This doesn’t preclude solar from being the ideal energy source of the future, but the authors of the articles you reference have largely ignored these other cost and energy storage concerns.

Solar power, as my blog data show, is not needed for energy independence. But I agree that solar will eventually become the number one power source. But I doubt if that will happen for many years until batteries become viable.

This woman and her company could, possibly, be close to solving to storage issue. They don’t use batteries. It’s an old/new technology. Their first product is due in 2014, and several reputable sources think this could be a paradigm changer.

Greg says, “This interviewer is kind of a jerk at a Forbes. Here’s a better more complete video.”

Compressed air energy storage is a great concept. The idea of spraying water to collect, store, and return heat on the compress and decompress cycles is brilliant. Of course, her being attractive, wearing a short skirt, having beautiful legs, and being a genius makes the video very easy to listen to and watch! But, then again, I am probably the only one that noticed that.

There is one thing about her presentation that I somewhat disagreed with. She is mainly not competing with coal; she is competing with natural gas. And the new natural gas Peaker-Plants are very efficient and easy to start and stop. And natural gas is relatively inexpensive and likely to stay that way.

As she said, the environment is able to absorb a certain amount of fossil fuel burning, so there may not be the impetus to implement compressed air storage, which is still in its infancy of development. Wind and solar power combined with natural gas backup on power supply, combined with the expected reduced lower oil usage with higher efficiency vehicles, may be sufficient for us to have a sustainable climate, at least regarding the US’s contribution to global warming and other negative environmental impacts.

Nonetheless, compressed air storage is exciting, and maybe she will get the costs so low that natural gas cannot compete economically. This will be one of the many exciting things to watch in the coming years as the US goes for energy independence.

Just caught up with your decision to end the blog. I know you put a tremendous about of work into this blog and I will miss it. I want to let you know how much I appreciate your ability to think critically and but your evidence and conclusions down in easy to understand language. I did not always agree with you but I always respected and listened and tried to stay open enough to change.

If you write more books let me know as I am likely to buy what you write.

Thanks for all you have done. Your last blog on energy is enlightening but that is not unusual for you.

Hi Warren,
I read your compelling novel and was surprised how conflicted I still was at the end of the story. It is really a modern parable.
I finished ” The Child Remover” and then read this month’s blog. Fracking presents another moral dilemma. Again, just like your novel, no easy answers, no black and white world. I appreciate your explanation and between your novel and blog I am rethinking my initial reaction.
I hate to see you end this valuable blog but certainly can understand the amount of effort it takes.
As far as predicting a depression, I remember back when the NY banks loaned huge sums to Latin America and they defaulted. Each time this happened subsequently, rational people expected an economic fallout. Instead we got taxpayer bailouts. Our economy has become a Rube Goldberg contraption that belies prediction but your guidance has been invaluable!
Thanks for all your hard work and forcing me to pay attention to statistics ( a course I quickly and happily left behind in graduate school).

Goshdig says, “I read your compelling novel and was surprised how conflicted I still was at the end of the story. It is really a modern parable… no easy answers, no black and white world.”

Thanks for your comments on my novel. You read into it exactly what I hoped readers would. If you get a chance, why don’t you review it on Amazon. Just what you have above would be sufficient.

Thanks for your feedback over the years. I am in the middle of writing a chapter book for young adults. I will see when I am done if I have the energy to tackle the massive undertaking of another book on the economy as I see it now. Lots of fascinating and important things happening that require much thought, research, and some speculation. Will the Republicans keep immolating themselves as to the female and minority vote? And, if as a result, what will happen if the Democrats take over both houses with President Hillary in charge? Are China, Japan, and Europe pursuing the same MPG goals on their autos and trucks? Are they fracking? How bad will the Middle East get? Will Israel attack Iran and if so, how involved will we get. All of these things have HUGE ramifications for our economy in the coming relatively few years.

Warren says!!!! what will happen if the Democrats take over both houses with President Hillary in charge?

If Hillary ever becomes Pres (in which I doubt) she would be doing it for one reason, (to pay back slick willie) Also I think that Weiner is the poster child for the dem / lib party!!!!! Do you agree??

Note the following summaries of polls going back to the first of the year in one case, and in the other case they are all recent. Note that in no case does Hillary get beat by any of the Republican candidates.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Hillary will win, because elections are a long way off. But, on what basis do you say “I doubt?” Is it just because you don’t want her to win, or do you have actual data supporting why you feel the way you do?

This is one of the reasons I am stopping this blog. I am very data/numbers oriented, and I find it very difficult to deal with how many times emotions or desires rather than rational thinking and data are used as reasoning points.